MEMORANDUM

J. WILLIAM DITTER, Jr., District Judge.

This is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Ronald Chase. Chase challenges his pre-trial detention arguing that he was improperly denied bail and that his speedy trial rights were violated. For the reasons that follow, the petition is being denied as moot.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On April 9, 2010, Chase was arrested in connection with a string of burglaries targeting students at the University of Pennsylvania. He was held in prison after failing to post bail. Additional arrests related to the burglaries occurred on May 14, 2010, and August 13, 2010. In October 2010, a total of seven cases were consolidated against Chase. A preliminary hearing was held in Philadelphia Municipal Court on February 9, 2011. Chase was held on all charges and his case was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas.

Over the next year, the Commonwealth conducted discovery, plea negotiations took place, and a mental health evaluation and competency examination were completed. Chase's case was continued due to conflicts with the trial court schedule and defense counsel's requests. Chase filed a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure on September 9, 2011, and a motion for release pursuant to Rule 600 on October 18, 2011.1

Chase was deemed competent to stand trial on November 2, 2011. On February 27, 2012, Chase's motion for release on nominal bail was denied. Continuances were granted to the defense throughout this time.

On December 19, 2012, Chase's motion for release pursuant to Rule 600 was denied. On February 11, 2013, Chase rejected a plea offer from the Commonwealth. Defense counsel formally withdrew representation and a public defender was appointed to represent Chase. Newly granted defense counsel was granted several continuances for plea negotiations and trial preparation.

On September 16, 2013, Chase's case was continued to investigate a plea deal. Although the case was listed for trial, it was continued on December 31, 2013, for a second mental health evaluation of Chase.

On April 8, 2014, Chase filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking his immediate release from pre-trial custody. Chase claims that the Commonwealth violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and his right to release on nominal bail under Rule 600.

After filing this federal habeas petition, on April 17, 2014, Chase was deemed incompetent to stand trial. For the next year, defense requests for continuances were granted until April 21, 2015, when defense counsel withdrew his appearance and Chase was permitted to proceed pro se. Chase entered a negotiated guilty plea and was sentenced to 5-10 years of incarceration and placed on probation for an additional five years. According to the state court's docket as of July 20, 2015, there is no indication that Chase has filed to withdraw his plea or that he has otherwise appealed, thus his judgment of sentence is final. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the order from which the appeal is taken).

Respondents filed an answer to Chase's federal habeas petition asserting that Chase's petition is not entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not exhausted his state court remedies and because his claims are meritless.2

DISCUSSION:

A. Jurisdiction and Mootness

Chase filed the instant habeas petition while incarcerated at Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility awaiting trial. Criminal defendants incarcerated by a state awaiting trial may seek a writ of habeas corpus from federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437 (3d Cir. 1975).

Chase claims that inordinate delay in bringing him to trial has violated his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.3 Although Chase has set forth a cognizable claim, see Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-532 (1972), I need not determine the merits of that claim because Chase has pled guilty and been sentenced to 5-10 years' imprisonment. He is no longer in pre-trial custody. Because Chase only challenges his pre-trial detention in the instant petition, his sole claim is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998). As a result, his habeas petition is being denied as moot.

An appropriate order follows.